Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Topic started by: LastFootnote on March 27, 2015, 04:39:37 pm
-
Wanderer: Action, $3
+4 Cards. The player to your right gains this card.
Just the simplest possible version of a card that moves from player to player. Originally I was going to have it passed to the player on your right, but that's giving them a bonus card in hand, which I think is a bit much to swallow.
Opinions?
-
Wanderer: Action, $3
+4 Cards. The player to your right gains this card.
Just the simplest possible version of a card that moves from player to player. Originally I was going to have it passed to the player on your right, but that's giving them a bonus card in hand, which I think is a bit much to swallow.
Opinions?
Is there a specific reason why it goes right? I feel this even further increases the problem of certain players profiting more from it than others, which i allready critizised with Flip5ide's Diplomat. I mean, all official cards that only affect a certain player (Tribute, Possession) are relatively neutral in effect, or at least for the most decks. Gaining a one-time Hunting Grounds is pretty big, and i don't like the fact that, especially if you play it later in the game, one other player may gain five of them, and be able to play them for a mega turn, while a third player might not even see them before the game ends.
Anyhow, it's more about the central passing effect than Diplomat, which i think is a good thing. I'm just not really convinced of the concept in general, i guess.
-
Is there a specific reason why it goes right? I feel this even further increases the problem of certain players profiting more from it than others, which i allready critizised with Flip5ide's Diplomat. I mean, all official cards that only affect a certain player (Tribute, Possession) are relatively neutral in effect, or at least for the most decks. Gaining a one-time Hunting Grounds is pretty big, and i don't like the fact that, especially if you play it later in the game, one other player may gain five of them, and be able to play them for a mega turn, while a third player might not even see them before the game ends.
The reason is to slow down its travel. In e.g. a 4-player game, if you play a Wanderer, it's going to be at least three turns before you see it again. If the player to your left gains it, it's you might have it on your next turn. I guess in a 2-player game you might see it on each turn anyway.
Maybe it's a dud concept, but it seems like it could be fun. Perhaps it needs a bonus for the player who actually bought it.
-
In general, I think these concepts always sound interesting. :) I think a when-buy bonus would be good so that the person who actually goes out on a limb to buy it gets something the other freeloaders don't.
-
The reason is to slow down its travel. In e.g. a 4-player game, if you play a Wanderer, it's going to be at least three turns before you see it again. If the player to your left gains it, it's you might have it on your next turn. I guess in a 2-player game you might see it on each turn anyway.
Wanderer: Action, $3
+4 Cards. The player to your right gains this card.
Normal gain, as in goes to the discard pile of the player to your right? Unless you're all cycling through your decks pretty quickly, the receiving player won't play it again right away and it won't move super-fast, so I think player to the left might be okay. Nothing wrong with the right though.
Being terminal, there's the chance it could get "stuck" in the deck of a player who maybe already has a bunch of other terminals they'd rather play? Maybe make it a super-Lab (+3 cards, +1 action) instead of a super-Smithy, so that it fits into almost any deck?
It could also spur politics of the form, "I'm not playing it because the player to my right is winning and I don't want to give it to him." I guess you could force the movement with something like:
Action - Duration
+4 Cards
At the start of the player to your right's turn, that player gains and plays this card.
But that version definitely needs an on-buy bonus because the buyer is the only one who ever has to play it terminally or have it in their deck.
-
I'd actually prefer it to be a card that doesn't work great in every deck. I feel like it'll have more meaningful player interaction that way. You got passed this card, better make sure you can use it to your advantage!
Politics are a potential issue, but I think it's worth testing as-is (or rather, with an on-buy bonus that I have yet to determine). Sometimes things that might cause politics end up not doing so.
-
I'd actually prefer it to be a card that doesn't work great in every deck. I feel like it'll have more meaningful player interaction that way. You got passed this card, better make sure you can use it to your advantage!
Fair point, if it's terminal then even if you don't plan to buy it you have to think about it as potential "junk" much like you have to consider that your opponent can give you a Silver if Embassy exists.
Politics are a potential issue, but I think it's worth testing as-is (or rather, with an on-buy bonus that I have yet to determine). Sometimes things that might cause politics end up not doing so.
I think politics depend more on the group than the game itself, meaning the game only decides whether to admit the possibility of politics, and if politics exist then the players decide how far to go. But that's just my experience. For the on-buy I was thinking maybe money? +1 buy, +X$? If X > 2, you might have to explicitly stop someone from instantly draining the pile though. Maybe on buy take X coin tokens?
-
I like the concept and I think it's reasonable to make Wanderer go to the player to your right. Because otherwise, in a multiplayer game where everyone is building an engine, the Wanderers could "accumulate" all in one player's deck if you pass them forward the same way you pass turns. Travelling backwards slows it down and that's fine.
I could even imagine an on-play effect that is more situational to increase the possibility that it feels more like junk to some players in some decks and situations. I can't come up with something good right now, though.
An on-buy bonus would be a nice incentive to be the first one to get them. I'm sure you can come up with something fitting.
Finally, I agree with LFN and theblankman that politics don't need to be an issue if the players don't see a card with that potential this way. On the other hand, a friend of mine manages to regard attack cards in multiplayer games as unilaterally directed against him which is usually because his deck is more vulnerable to attacks than others and he assumes everyone would exploit that. So it really depends on the people.
-
What if the Wanderer left behind a Silver when he left? I don't know, that seems thematic to me. Like Johnny Appleseed or something.
I have no actual gameplay justification here, just Johnny Appleseed.
-
But the Wanderer goes with nothing, nothing but the thought of you. He goes wandering.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-dZvQxYX1g
-
What if the Wanderer left behind a Silver when he left? I don't know, that seems thematic to me. Like Johnny Appleseed or something.
I have no actual gameplay justification here, just Johnny Appleseed.
So you give yourself a curse whenever you play it? :p
-
What if the Wanderer left behind a Silver when he left? I don't know, that seems thematic to me. Like Johnny Appleseed or something.
I have no actual gameplay justification here, just Johnny Appleseed.
So you give yourself a curse whenever you play it? :p
WanderingWinder is famous for buying Silvers, not curses :)
-
WanderingWinder is famous for buying Silvers, not curses :)
Yeah, it's SheCantSayNo who's famous for calling Silver a curse. But in most decks he's right. You might buy a few early to help get the cards you really want, but in an engine Silver is a stop card, and in Big Money it's the consolation prize, when you can't afford Gold or (insert helper action here) or a green card if it's time to be buying those. I'd say if you want to keep getting Silver late into the game, that's a specific-card edge case like Feodum or Jack. So having a card like this leave Silver behind makes it significantly weaker, and it's already essentially a one-shot that you're not gonna regain for several turns.
-
WanderingWinder is famous for buying Silvers, not curses :)
Yeah, it's SheCantSayNo who's famous for calling Silver a curse. But in most decks he's right. You might buy a few early to help get the cards you really want, but in an engine Silver is a stop card, and in Big Money it's the consolation prize, when you can't afford Gold or (insert helper action here) or a green card if it's time to be buying those. I'd say if you want to keep getting Silver late into the game, that's a specific-card edge case like Feodum or Jack. So having a card like this leave Silver behind makes it significantly weaker, and it's already essentially a one-shot that you're not gonna regain for several turns.
Silver is a good card in big money.
-
It's a stepping stone, not a thing you want to be adding to your deck throughout most Big Money into Province games. Big money tends to go something like: buy silver, buy gold, buy green cards; with your BM-aiding action in there somewhere depending on its cost. The longer you have to keep buying Silver instead of gold, useful actions or VP, the worse things are going for you.
-
It's a stepping stone, not a thing you want to be adding to your deck throughout most Big Money into Province games. Big money tends to go something like: buy silver, buy gold, buy green cards; with your BM-aiding action in there somewhere depending on its cost. The longer you have to keep buying Silver instead of gold, useful actions or VP, the worse things are going for you.
The key thing you are missing is that it's bad if you have to keep buying Silver, instead of buying other things. But pops' idea is for the card to gain you a Silver for free. You don't have to spend a buy on it. If you are playing Big Money, getting the free silver is almost always a good thing for you (at least in Province games).
Edit: And in Big Money, Silver may be a consolation prize but it's not a bad one. Awaclus is right that it is a fine card for BM. It's just that BM strategies themselves are usually not so good.
-
It's a stepping stone, not a thing you want to be adding to your deck throughout most Big Money into Province games. Big money tends to go something like: buy silver, buy gold, buy green cards; with your BM-aiding action in there somewhere depending on its cost. The longer you have to keep buying Silver instead of gold, useful actions or VP, the worse things are going for you.
Well, yes, but it's not because it's a bad card, but because turns when you can't do anything but buy a Silver are bad turns.
-
Silver is a good card. If you have nothing but 5 silvers in your hand you can buy a Province and agnostic of the kingdom you can't do anything better than that. Silver is bad when a Kingdom is even better than Silver.
Copper is a curse.
-
Most attacks make Silver not good enough. Can't buy Province with a 3-card hand of Silvers, and you're far less likely to get 4 at once if your deck is junky. You almost always need better cards than Silver to win. Free Silver is a small bonus even if it's not outright junk. When's the last time it stopped you from buying Embassy? Wanderer dropping Silver is cute, but I think it makes the card weaker and its power level already seemed okay.
-
Most attacks make Silver not good enough. Can't buy Province with a 3-card hand of Silvers, and you're far less likely to get 4 at once if your deck is junky. You almost always need better cards than Silver to win. Free Silver is a small bonus even if it's not outright junk. When's the last time it stopped you from buying Embassy? Wanderer dropping Silver is cute, but I think it makes the card weaker and its power level already seemed okay.
Why would you ever play big money when there's a hand size attack on the board anyway (edge cases exist, but they're rare and super annoying)?
The more Silvers you have, the more likely you are to get 4 at once even if your deck is junky. If you're playing Masterpiece/big money, you can hardly notice the effect your opponent's Witch has on your deck. A free Silver might not be a huge bonus, but it's not a marginal bonus either. It's certainly something I consider every time I buy Embassy, and sometimes I'm fine getting a Gold instead of the Embassy in order to not hand out the Silver.
-
Silver is average. Good, not great.
I think that's what we're all sayin'.
EDIT: I guess I didn't say anything yet... So I'll just be the one to say this.
-
Silver is average. Good, not great. I think that's what we're all sayin'.
That's not what I'm saying. It's awful in engines. But it's very good (usually the best card at its price point) in big money, and often in slogs and rushes as well.
-
You generally can't play a Militia every turn unless you have one of those Kingdoms-better-than-Silver that I hear so much about. So Silver will get you some Provinces. Notably, Militia-Militia-Militia-Militia-Militia can't, though.
-
Having Wanderer gain a Silver on-play would be interesting. Probably it wouldn't do that and draw cards. Or maybe it could just gain a Gold. If I ever test it, I'll probably try the card draw first.
I am considering "Gain a Silver" as Wanderer's on-buy bonus, though probably it would have to cost $4 at that point.
-
Why would you ever play big money when there's a hand size attack on the board anyway (edge cases exist, but they're rare and super annoying)?
Big money is the default. It takes specific cards like alt VP to make a viable rush or slog, and specific effects to make a viable engine. If those aren't on the board, you're playing big money, attacks or not.
Having Wanderer gain a Silver on-play would be interesting. Probably it wouldn't do that and draw cards. Or maybe it could just gain a Gold. If I ever test it, I'll probably try the card draw first.
I am considering "Gain a Silver" as Wanderer's on-buy bonus, though probably it would have to cost $4 at that point.
I like draw over gaining a treasure, especially since the card passes between players who might be playing different strategies. Gain a treasure is definitely bad for some decks; those players would likely end the wandering you're going for (trash him or just not play him). Gain a silver on buy at $4 makes it a good opener for a lot of decks though.
-
Keeping a Confusion in your deck to avoid gaining a Silver? The underestimation of Silver in this thread is ridiculous.
-
Why would you ever play big money when there's a hand size attack on the board anyway (edge cases exist, but they're rare and super annoying)?
Big money is the default. It takes specific cards like alt VP to make a viable rush or slog, and specific effects to make a viable engine. If those aren't on the board, you're playing big money, attacks or not.
Big Money is not the default. It's the baseline.
-
I am considering "Gain a Silver" as Wanderer's on-buy bonus, though probably it would have to cost $4 at that point.
Gaining a silver seems like a bland bonus, imo. Since you only play this card once, I think it's OK if the on-buy bonus be comparable to an on-play effect. I guess the simplest version of that would be a Noble Brigand when-buy-or-play, now that I think of it. So you're the only one who gets 2 uses out of it? (Although I like the card-drawing version and on-buy card drawing is not good...)
I like draw over gaining a treasure, especially since the card passes between players who might be playing different strategies. Gain a treasure is definitely bad for some decks; those players would likely end the wandering you're going for (trash him or just not play him). Gain a silver on buy at $4 makes it a good opener for a lot of decks though.
If you want it to work with any player's strategy, you could make it a "choose one". But then it always sucks to pass it off to your opponent because it would always be useful to them, so you never feel like doing it. I kinda like that it's somewhat situational and whether you buy this card depends on your opponents strategy.
-
If those aren't on the board, you're playing big money, attacks --
Yes, and that is a rare and super annoying edge case.
-
Keeping a Confusion in your deck to avoid gaining a Silver? The underestimation of Silver in this thread is ridiculous.
No, keeping a Confusion in your deck to avoid gaining a Silver now and getting the Confusion back later. If the card is better for your opponents than for you, they'll play it and you'll end up with it in your deck again.
If those aren't on the board, you're playing big money, attacks --
Yes, and that is a rare and super annoying edge case.
I don't find it all that rare... engines, slogs and rushes require specific combinations of effects to work. Any one thing missing and you're back to money. Terminal draw but no village -> BM+Draw. Ways to draw your deck but no extra gains? Hope the engine starts running quickly. Money has no requirements, just pick the best supporting card in the kingdom (or play BMU if they all suck). Everything else needs at least 2 or 3 cards that work well together. I call BM the default because its essential pieces are base cards, so it's what you play when any one of the essential pieces for another strategy is missing.
-
Keeping a Confusion in your deck to avoid gaining a Silver? The underestimation of Silver in this thread is ridiculous.
No, keeping a Confusion in your deck to avoid gaining a Silver now and getting the Confusion back later. If the card is better for your opponents than for you, they'll play it and you'll end up with it in your deck again.
If those aren't on the board, you're playing big money, attacks --
Yes, and that is a rare and super annoying edge case.
I don't find it all that rare... engines, slogs and rushes require specific combinations of effects to work. Any one thing missing and you're back to money. Terminal draw but no village -> BM+Draw. Ways to draw your deck but no extra gains? Hope the engine starts running quickly. Money has no requirements, just pick the best supporting card in the kingdom (or play BMU if they all suck). Everything else needs at least 2 or 3 cards that work well together. I call BM the default because its essential pieces are base cards, so it's what you play when any one of the essential pieces for another strategy is missing.
As I said, Big Money is the baseline. But if you want to improve as a competitive player, you really shouldn't consider it the default. There are usually better things you can do. Even when the stars don't perfectly align, the engine or rush or combo deck will often outperform BM anyway. If you go into your games with BM as your default, you will miss the slightly-off-kilter engines that can still beat it.
-
As I said, Big Money is the baseline. But if you want to improve as a competitive player, you really shouldn't consider it the default. There are usually better things you can do. Even when the stars don't perfectly align, the engine or rush or combo deck will often outperform BM anyway. If you go into your games with BM as your default, you will miss the slightly-off-kilter engines that can still beat it.
Even the most off-kilter engines have some things in common: a way to get lots of cards, and some payload that will win you the game if you play it a lot. If either of those is missing from the board (and often at least one of them is), then you literally can't an engine. WanderingWinder goes into great detail on the subject: http://dominionstrategy.com/2013/01/23/the-five-fundamental-deck-types-the-engine/
I'm not saying you should approach a game with BM as your default strategy, I mean that BM is the default because it's the only strategy guaranteed to be possible on every kingdom. Sometimes it's not the best, but when there's nothing else, it's what you default to because it's always there.
-
As I said, Big Money is the baseline. But if you want to improve as a competitive player, you really shouldn't consider it the default. There are usually better things you can do. Even when the stars don't perfectly align, the engine or rush or combo deck will often outperform BM anyway. If you go into your games with BM as your default, you will miss the slightly-off-kilter engines that can still beat it.
Even the most off-kilter engines have some things in common: a way to get lots of cards, and some payload that will win you the game if you play it a lot. If either of those is missing from the board (and often at least one of them is), then you literally can't an engine. WanderingWinder goes into great detail on the subject: http://dominionstrategy.com/2013/01/23/the-five-fundamental-deck-types-the-engine/
I'm not saying you should approach a game with BM as your default strategy, I mean that BM is the default because it's the only strategy guaranteed to be possible on every kingdom. Sometimes it's not the best, but when there's nothing else, it's what you default to because it's always there.
In that same series of articles, WW talks about Big Money (http://dominionstrategy.com/2013/01/21/the-five-fundamental-deck-types-big-money/), which links to his thoughts about Money Density (http://dominionstrategy.com/2012/02/27/the-keys-to-big-money-money-density-and-opportunity-cost/). But in a much more recent article (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12794.0), WW basically says that this a mindset that you need to move past (as he has since done).
In any case, even if you take this position, Awaclus is still correct. The times when Big Money is the right choice is rare. There are pretty much always better things for you to do.
-
Well, obviously Big Money is not why we play Dominion. Every kingdom card tries to steer us away from pure BM, simply because it's not what the game is about. If pure BM without kingdom cards was a good tstrategy relatively often, Dominion's design as a game with kingdom piles had to be fundamentally flawed. It's basically a savety net, design wise: If, against the odds, the combination of kingdom cards is so unfitting that it becomes impossible to effectively play a combination of them, there's always Big Money. What makes this net more agreeable is that, even in such cases, kingdom cards will almost always add something, even if you limit yourself to very few of them. Heck, even opening Chancellor/Silver is strictly better than Silver/Silver if you will ignore all other kingdom cards anyhow (edge case: terminal collision with involuntarily gained terminals because of attacks). I get where the idea of BM as "default" comes from, and maybe it's just nomenclature, but i think "default" communicates "usual", which is not what i'd call BM.
-
Terminal draw but no village -> BM+Draw.
i.e. BM+no discard attack. So many things need to be true before BM+discard attack can be the best strategy on the board:
- No engine
- No rush/slog/combo
- No +cards or other strong BM enablers
- No Lighthouse or other cards that counter discard attacks
- No junking attacks
And finally,
- The discard attack has to be present
The first requirement already rules out a vast majority of the games and the third one rules out the rest, more or less. I think I've played exactly one discard attack/BM game this year, and I'd say that counts as a rare edge case.
-
I just remembered this card somehow. I should print it out and test it. Here's the version I think I'll try:
Wanderer: Action, $3
+4 Cards. The player to your right gains this card.
When you gain this, put your deck into your discard pile.
-
Terminal draw but no village -> BM+Draw.
This is very bad advice. You're missing a lot of engines with lab variants, peddler variants, Throne Room Variants, Herald, Ironmonger, some slogs, combos ... these things aren't the edge case. Big Money is.
-
I just remembered this card somehow. I should print it out and test it. Here's the version I think I'll try:
Wanderer: Action, $3
+4 Cards. The player to your right gains this card.
When you gain this, put your deck into your discard pile.
Changed "When you gain this" to "When you buy this", since the intent is that only the player who initially buys it gets the under-line bonus.
(http://i.imgur.com/fIHMXZu.png)
-
I like the idea but even with the gain bonus it might not create enough of an incentive to buy a card whom everybody profits from it (unless it is late in the game and you only plan to play it a a one-shot once anyway).
-
I like the idea but even with the gain bonus it might not create enough of an incentive to buy a card whom everybody profits from it (unless it is late in the game and you only plan to play it a a one-shot once anyway).
Yeah, that's definitely a concern. I could potentially make the on-buy bonus something you'd pay $3 for anyway (gain a Silver), but I'll try it this way first. My hope is that the fact you get to play it first is enough incentive. And there may be times where that combined with putting your deck into your discard is enough. It could also cost less (down to $0 even).
-
I realize belatedly that SirPeebles came up with this idea first (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10705.0)! So credit where credit is due. I'm going to test my version soon, so here it is. Let me know if you have any last-minute feedback before I try it out.
(http://i.imgur.com/o32xWJB.png)
-
Is there a reason the on-buy Chancellor isn't optional? If it's meant to be a bonus to buying it, I would think it should be optional. Otherwise you may end up avoiding buying it if you're halfway through a shuffle where you've drawn worse-than-average so far.
-
Is there a reason the on-buy Chancellor isn't optional? If it's meant to be a bonus to buying it, I would think it should be optional. Otherwise you may end up avoiding buying it if you're halfway through a shuffle where you've drawn worse-than-average so far.
Well I thought it would be cool if it were something you needed to take into account when buying it, but maybe you're right. I guess really it depends on how often you want to flip your deck and how often it gets bought in general. If it turns out to be marginal, making the Chancellor part optional is a good first step.
-
I love the idea. I'm currently toying with a similar passing mechanic for version 2.0 of Imp (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14295.msg546893#msg546893 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14295.msg546893#msg546893)).
My question, probably a matter for FAQ, is what happens in the (fringe) case of a reaction by Trader? Where does the card go, since it never makes it to the next player's deck? Does the person who played it retain it? Does it get lost? Does it return to the supply?
-
I love the idea. I'm currently toying with a similar passing mechanic for version 2.0 of Imp (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14295.msg546893#msg546893 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14295.msg546893#msg546893)).
My question, probably a matter for FAQ, is what happens in the (fringe) case of a reaction by Trader? Where does the card go, since it never makes it to the next player's deck? Does the person who played it retain it? Does it get lost? Does it return to the supply?
I'd just cut the question entirely and have it be a "put" instead of a "gain" so the other player has no choice but to take it.
-
I love the idea. I'm currently toying with a similar passing mechanic for version 2.0 of Imp (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14295.msg546893#msg546893 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14295.msg546893#msg546893)).
My question, probably a matter for FAQ, is what happens in the (fringe) case of a reaction by Trader? Where does the card go, since it never makes it to the next player's deck? Does the person who played it retain it? Does it get lost? Does it return to the supply?
I would say that the only reasonable ruling is that it stays in the play area of the person who played it and then gets discarded as normal at the end of the turn.
-
I love the idea. I'm currently toying with a similar passing mechanic for version 2.0 of Imp (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14295.msg546893#msg546893 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14295.msg546893#msg546893)).
My question, probably a matter for FAQ, is what happens in the (fringe) case of a reaction by Trader? Where does the card go, since it never makes it to the next player's deck? Does the person who played it retain it? Does it get lost? Does it return to the supply?
I'd just cut the question entirely and have it be a "put" instead of a "gain" so the other player has no choice but to take it.
I think eHalcyon's suggestion is the way to go. It probably avoids other problematic edge cases we haven't thought about, yet.